[TrulEConcerned]

Jimmy thanks for your feedback. With reference to the specific by law on non resident owners, I take your point.

As to other by laws, earlier I wrote that I understood from a lawyer last year that an OC or SC is not compelled to enforce a by law or by laws if it so chooses. I don’t have my colleague’s reasons for that opinion with me, but a search today online reveals the view on by laws by another law firm:

Understand why your strata committee may refuse to act:

The strata committee must enforce the by-laws if they “reasonably believe” there has been a breach. The committee or body corporate may have to demonstrate that it is reasonable in the circumstances of the alleged breach to not enforce the by-laws. They should provide clear reasons regarding their decision to the affected owners and examine the effectiveness of the by-laws.

See https://picagroup.com.au/article/library/breaking-by-laws-strata/

This was in relation to noise from builders renovating a unit in the strata (outside allowed times for work) which greatly disturbed others.

[TrulEConcerned]

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it, owners of lots cannot be restricted in their short term (AB&B) rentals by the OC.

If that is so, and a lot owner renting out his lot in full (ie he is not on the premises), surely whatever parking rules he lives under are those that should regulate how his guest/s will live under. If he is subject to heavy penalties or clamping for transgressing than surely his “guests” would be too. If he is not, then surely his guests should not be.

As an aside, I understand from a discussion with a lawyer that owners should not feel comforted necessarily by a strata’s collection of by laws including a by law that seems to meet an owner’s needs.

This is because there is nothing compelling a Strata Committee (SC) from enforcing any by law.

And in many cases, given the dominance and sway a SC has over others, the OC if taking part in a general meeting to decide on enforcing a by law, will often ape the SC’s views.

 

 

[TrulEConcerned]

Hi Jimmy,

Thanks for posting my earlier contribution notwithstanding you had reservations. Allow me to clarify a couple of points:

1. Your point on determining ownership of the storage unit is indeed Job #1. Who owns the storage unit? The Owners’ Corp? The lot owner (on title) or the lot owner (via exclusive use). If via exclusive use, what conditions were placed on the said lot owner?

2. As to TrulE’s inclusion of “loud music” in the paragraph:

Other important responsibilities of strata residents


There are other obligations for strata residents under the Act. Residents must not:

* 
interfere with or impact another person’s lot, including services provided to them or the common property. This includes doing anything to affect another lot owner’s water, sewage, drainage, gas, electricity, garbage, air conditioning, heating or telecommunications services
;

* cause a nuisance or hazard to another resident, such as playing loud music; and

*
 use the common property in a way that interferes unreasonably with others in the scheme using and enjoying it.

Note this was lifted chapter and verse from Fair Trading’s website, see https://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/housing-and-property/strata-and-community-living/strata-schemes/by-laws-in-your-strata-scheme in their reference to “nuisance”.

The matter of “nuisance” (ie “inconvenience”) was considered recently by the NSW Supreme Court and it was found that
* The mere causing of inconvenience was not necessarily an actionable nuisance. Instead, the reasonable and ordinary use of land may be a good indicator of whether a nuisance within section 153(1)(a) of the Act has been created; and

* Substantial interference with another owner needs to be established

see The Owners Strata Plan No 2245 v Veney [2020] NSWSC 134 (Veney Case), the Supreme Court of NSW

Which again brings us to the key point: who is being inconvenienced  – a lot owner of the Owners’ Corp – by what seems to be the unauthorised use of a storage unit.

[TrulEConcerned]

stratamadness wrote:

some time ago, an owner in our building physically changed the direction of a security camera. It was so he could not be seen taking over a storage unit that did not belong to him. What would you suggest would be an appropriate course of action for this stupid act?

My first impression is that the offender in question is selfish and not as you suggest, “stupid”.

As I see it, the offender is interfering with the common property (being the camera) and interfering with another lot’s lawful use of a storage unit.

The following comes to mind.

Under the NSW Strata Schemes Management Act, residents must not:

1. Interfere with or impact another person’s lot, including services provided to them or the common property. This includes doing anything to affect another lot owner’s water, sewage, drainage, gas, electricity, garbage, air conditioning, heating or telecommunications services
2. cause a nuisance or hazard to another resident, such as playing loud music
3. use the common property in a way that interferes unreasonably with others in the scheme using and enjoying it.

This is spelled out as follows:

STRATA SCHEMES MANAGEMENT ACT 2015 – SECT 153
Owners, occupiers and other persons not to create nuisance

153 Owners, occupiers and other persons not to create nuisance

(1) An owner, mortgagee or covenant chargee in possession, tenant or occupier of a lot in a strata scheme must not:

(a) use or enjoy the lot, or permit the lot to be used or enjoyed, in a manner or for a purpose that causes a nuisance or hazard to the occupier of any other lot (whether that person is an owner or not), or

(b) use or enjoy the common property in a manner or for a purpose that interferes unreasonably with the use or enjoyment of the common property by the occupier of any other lot (whether that person is an owner or not) or by any other person entitled to the use and enjoyment of the common property, or

(c) use or enjoy the common property in a manner or for a purpose that interferes unreasonably with the use or enjoyment of any other lot by the occupier of the lot (whether that person is an owner or not) or by any other person entitled to the use and enjoyment of the lot.

Common Property – Camera

You could inform the Strata Committee that the offender is breaching the NSW SSMA [s. 153(1)(b)] by repositioning the common property (camera) without authority and what do they plan to do about it?

Another lot being inconvenienced

If the offender is also interfering (and hence inconveniencing by creating a nuisance) with another lot’s lawful use of the storage area, has he/she complained? If not, he/she should inform the Strata Committee that the offender is also in breach of [s. 153(1)(a) and (c)] .

 

[TrulEConcerned]

Hi, sorry for the later reply. Your views are appreciated.

1. Webman wrote: Out of interest, have you obtained any independant quotes on what it would cost to have the area cleaned once per month? How does this compare to the current costs?

TrueE replies: There is a two person strata committee in a 5 lot building . The  Sec/Tsr nominated a cleaning service some years ago which is rumoured to be owned by his friend. No quotes were obtained. No other firms were even approached. While the strata has changed agents 3x, the said cleaning service has been a constant.

       2. Webman wrote: From a contractors point of view, they would be charging for the travel time to/from your  property, as well as transport costs (eg vehicle costs, etc), employee time, and equipment costs (even if that isa  simple broom and dust pan). Sure, it is always cheaper to do it yourself, and every job always looks easier when someone else is doing it. My suggestion, get three quotes, and then present those at the next SC meeting or AGM. Even older people will be able to decide if they want to pay a higher/lower price for the same job to be done.

TrulE replies: You make sense. Even though some may charge for travel etc, three quotes would be very useful as one could see their individual greed. I recall the Tsr/Sec year ago poo-pooing my idea for a resident to spend the 45 mins or so sweeping because he did not want the OC to be liable in case of injury to the resident.

As to your comment on older people: note when there are two and one has severe memory problems and mood swings and the other sits on a committee but is little more than an echo for the dominant Tsr/Sec (as she shies away from confrontation) your optimism cannot be realised in this strata.

3              Webman wrote: Finally, perhaps you should also ask about the original agreement to provide services. Maybe it was to have the cleaning done on the xth day of each month for a fixed monthly fee. When there is inclement weather on the nth day, then obviously services can’t be performed, but it is quite possible that the agreement still permits charges to apply. Again, this might be something that could be re-negotiated if you feel the OC would be better served with a more flexible service (ie, provided any day within a week after the xth day where the weather permits), potentially at a higher cost.

TrulE writes: From memory no agreement in writing was formalised by the Sec/Tsr on behalf of the SC or OC. He did say at an AGM that he will organise once a month cleaning. No mention was made as to whether he has a direct, indirect, professional or social relationship with the said contractor. I see from many invoices that mention is made of once a month cleaning with zero details as to who did the work how long he spent and what exactly he did. The price has grown to $82 per instance, which I find appalling as I could do the small amount of work in 45 mins max.

Webman wrote: When looking at alternative suppliers, ensure you are quoting for the same thing.

TrulE writes: Ideally YES. But I am dealing with an outlier situation to the Act. The strata has 5 lots. The Tsr/Sec demanded the committee comprise him and an elderly woman. That is 2 only. I moved for 3 members of the SC at the AGM but the Sec/Tsr argued that he “could not work with me” and that if I was elected he would not be on the SC. The seniors, see below caved in. For good measure cajoled an elderly man for his proxy. So now the Tsr/Sec has 3 of 5 votes: his, an elderly man + an elderly woman. Nothing will change unless he is blasted out of office. He argued against having me on the committee after inquiring with others about my performance at another strata where as Tsr for a decade I insisted on transparency and quotes, he clearly decided my attitude was incompatible with his vision for the strata.

Webamn wrote: PS, have you tried talking to the actual worker when they show up to do the cleaning? If you approach them in a friendly manner, introduce yourself as a new owner, and being curious as to what they do, how often, etc, you could get a lot more information than beating your head against the SC wall. Although, the SC may have already pre-warned the contractor about you if you have already been raising questions, so that may not go so far now.

TrulE writes: Given the rumoured association between the Sec/Tsr and the cleaning company, this good suggestion will not yield the result hoped for. In fact one resident told me that he has not seen the cleaner for 3 months and wondered what happened? In the last day the agent replied to my question as to WHEN the cleaner allegedly attended the strata and I was given dates in Jan, Feb, Mar and April. I suspect either the cleaner of committee members told the agent these dates. This no doubt is to explain why pmts were made to the cleaner over those months notwithstanding the agent last month wrote to me that the bad weather in Sydney could explain why the cleaner was absent for a few months.

Also in response to my queries as to who on the committee approved the invoices after presumably inspecting the work and finding it to be a good standard, the agent parroted the  Sec/Tsr in the reply which ignored mention of anyone approving the invoices and merely indicated that the elderly man (who as mentioned is not on the committee nor a reliable witness) “usually” sees the cleaner and is “happy” with the work.

Webman wrote: Best of luck, I think this is probably going to be just the first of many battles ahead of you 😉

TrulE writes: You said it!

Hi, sorry for the later reply. Your views are appreciated.

1. Webman wrote: Out of interest, have you obtained any independant quotes on what it would cost to have the area cleaned once per month? How does this compare to the current costs?

TrueE replies: There is a two person strata committee in a 5 lot building . The  Sec/Tsr nominated a cleaning service some years ago which is rumoured to be owned by his friend. No quotes were obtained. No other firms were even approached. While the strata has changed agents 3x, the said cleaning service has been a constant.

       2. Webman wrote: From a contractors point of view, they would be charging for the travel time to/from your  property, as well as transport costs (eg vehicle costs, etc), employee time, and equipment costs (even if that isa  simple broom and dust pan). Sure, it is always cheaper to do it yourself, and every job always looks easier when someone else is doing it. My suggestion, get three quotes, and then present those at the next SC meeting or AGM. Even older people will be able to decide if they want to pay a higher/lower price for the same job to be done.

TrulE replies: You make sense. Even though some may charge for travel etc, three quotes would be very useful as one could see their individual greed. I recall the Tsr/Sec year ago poo-pooing my idea for a resident to spend the 45 mins or so sweeping because he did not want the OC to be liable in case of injury to the resident.

As to your comment on older people: note when there are two and one has severe memory problems and mood swings and the other sits on a committee but is little more than an echo for the dominant Tsr/Sec (as she shies away from confrontation) your optimism cannot be realised in this strata.

3              Webman wrote: Finally, perhaps you should also ask about the original agreement to provide services. Maybe it was to have the cleaning done on the xth day of each month for a fixed monthly fee. When there is inclement weather on the nth day, then obviously services can’t be performed, but it is quite possible that the agreement still permits charges to apply. Again, this might be something that could be re-negotiated if you feel the OC would be better served with a more flexible service (ie, provided any day within a week after the xth day where the weather permits), potentially at a higher cost.

TrulE writes: From memory no agreement in writing was formalised by the Sec/Tsr on behalf of the SC or OC. He did say at an AGM that he will organise once a month cleaning. No mention was made as to whether he has a direct, indirect, professional or social relationship with the said contractor. I see from many invoices that mention is made of once a month cleaning with zero details as to who did the work how long he spent and what exactly he did. The price has grown to $82 per instance, which I find appalling as I could do the small amount of work in 45 mins max.

Webman wrote: When looking at alternative suppliers, ensure you are quoting for the same thing.

TrulE writes: Ideally YES. But I am dealing with an outlier situation to the Act. The strata has 5 lots. The Tsr/Sec demanded the committee comprise him and an elderly woman. That is 2 only. I moved for 3 members of the SC at the AGM but the Sec/Tsr argued that he “could not work with me” and that if I was elected he would not be on the SC. The seniors, see below caved in. For good measure cajoled an elderly man for his proxy. So now the Tsr/Sec has 3 of 5 votes: his, an elderly man + an elderly woman. Nothing will change unless he is blasted out of office. He argued against having me on the committee after inquiring with others about my performance at another strata where as Tsr for a decade I insisted on transparency and quotes, he clearly decided my attitude was incompatible with his vision for the strata.

Webamn wrote: PS, have you tried talking to the actual worker when they show up to do the cleaning? If you approach them in a friendly manner, introduce yourself as a new owner, and being curious as to what they do, how often, etc, you could get a lot more information than beating your head against the SC wall. Although, the SC may have already pre-warned the contractor about you if you have already been raising questions, so that may not go so far now.

TrulE writes: Given the rumoured association between the Sec/Tsr and the cleaning company, this good suggestion will not yield the result hoped for. In fact one resident told me that he has not seen the cleaner for 3 months and wondered what happened? In the last day the agent replied to my question as to WHEN the cleaner allegedly attended the strata and I was given dates in Jan, Feb, Mar and April. I suspect either the cleaner of committee members told the agent these dates. This no doubt is to explain why pmts were made to the cleaner over those months notwithstanding the agent last month wrote to me that the bad weather in Sydney could explain why the cleaner was absent for a few months.

Also in response to my queries as to who on the committee approved the invoices after presumably inspecting the work and finding it to be a good standard, the agent parroted the  Sec/Tsr in the reply which ignored mention of anyone approving the invoices and merely indicated that the elderly man (who as mentioned is not on the committee nor a reliable witness) “usually” sees the cleaner and is “happy” with the work.

Webman wrote: Best of luck, I think this is probably going to be just the first of many battles ahead of you 😉

TrulE writes: You said it!

[TrulEConcerned]

TrulE wrote: The agent (relatively new) does engage with owners outside of the SC. Compared to many agents I have dealt with, this one is good. Like all other agents I have dealt with, he will not reply to an email until he receives chapter and verse from the SC, in this case the Sec/Tsr.

Jimmy wrote: These statements above appear to be completely contradictory.

TrulE responds: ALL agents in the strata plans I have been involved with wait to take their marching orders from the SC before replying to a non SC member. None have replied to lot owners without references to the SC. The current agent at least (from what I understand) immediately forwards my email to the SC for a view/comment/reply. He does not sit the email.

—-
TrulE wrote: I have no idea of the current policy [on payment approvals] which as I recall was never articulated by anyone at an AGM. So what you’re saying is that to ensure compliance with transparency, I should list a motion at the AGM accordingly?

Jimmy replied: Or you could just ask the committee, or propose a motion to the next committee meeting that someone explains how payments are approved.

TrulE responds: GREAT idea. Give the SC a chance to explain the current policy of paying invoices and if it smells dodgy, then list a motion at the AGM accordingly.

—-

TrulE wrote: Can I ask the SC if any member (there are two) has direct or indirect links or associations with the cleaning company, its owner(s) or staff? A link was never disclosed to the OC.

Jimmy wrote: You can ask and, if there are, it should have been disclosed under Part 18 of Schedule 2, of the Act and recorded in a book kept specifically for that purpose. Failure to disclose can lead to fines of up to $1100 but  doesn’t render any decisions invalid.

TrulE responds: I will look into this.

Thanks again.

[TrulEConcerned]

Jimmy wrote:

The agent doesn’t work for you, they work for the owners corporation (of which you are part).  It may be that there are instructions to or a tacit agreement with the Strata Manager not to engage directly with owners.  If that’s the case and you want it changed, propose it at as a motion at your next AGM and see if it flies as Owners Corp policy.  By the way, one of the reasons strata managers are discourged from dealing directly with individual owners (except, perhaps, in emergencies) is that each contact can cost money in Schedule B charges.

TrulE’s comment:  The agent (relatively new) does engage with owners outside of the SC. Compared to many agents I ahve dealt with, this one is good. Like all other agents I have dealt with, he will not reply to an email until he receives chapter and verse from the SC, in this case the Sec/Tsr.

TrulE’s question: If charges are levied for such questions, is it the OC or the individual lot asking the question which is charged?

Can invoices be paid without having been approved by anyone?

Jimmy wrote:

Again this depends on the agreed relationship with the strata manager.  Some schemes demand that a Strata Committee office-bearer co-signs all invoices.  Some leave it up entirely to the strata manager.  Again, this is a policy that can be changed by a simple motion to the next AGM.

TrulE’s comment: I have no idea of the current policy which as I recall was never articulated by anyone at an AGM. So what you’re saying is that to ensure compliance with transparency, I should list a motion at the AGM accordingly?

Can invoices be so meaningless as to raise the possibility that the OC is being fleeced?

That can happen in any walk of life, can’t it? Again, it’s up to the strata committee and owners corp to determine the level of diligence required.  If you want to change it, propose a standard format for all invoices that service providers have to use, and have that passed at a general meeting.

TrulE’s comment: I like your point on standard format and will act accordingly.

Jimmy wrote:

If you suspect serious fraud, that’s another matter entirely and should be pursued through Fair Trading and NCAT in the first instance, and the police therafter.

Each monthly invoice was similarly vague. While I suspect a good deal, I don’t have evidence. Can I ask the SC if any member (there are two) has direct or indirect links or associations with the cleaning company, its owner(s) or staff? A link was never disclosed to the OC

[TrulEConcerned]

Cosmo wrote

 

Unless enough owners are willing to demand better the agent can do all those things even if they aren’t aren’t authorised or legal.  Everything maybe above board or it may be as  dodgy as hell.  My view is that this, like most issues regarding common property, is one that must be transparent to all owners.

TrulE’s comment: in this case I don’t blame the agent. From what I have seen, he doesn’t wipe his nose without a pre-approval from the Sec/Tsr, who is the only active member on the SC. The other member, an elderly woman is on the SC in  name only. I 100% agree with you on the matter of transparency. This strata is a small one of 5 lots where I found the SC to be allergic to the notion of “transparency”. Contrast this to when I was Tsr of a 65 unit block where transparency was one of our guiding principles in action not in theory.

I have experienced such issues often.  The only way to properly address this issue is to get enough other owners on side.  Approach them point out how much the owners are paying and how little they really know about what value they are getting for that money.  Put a resolution either at the AGM or otherwise.

TrulE’s comment: And here is my problem. A strata of 5. Two elderly owners who are not as sharp as they were and are IMHO, intimidated by a loud Sec/Tsr. One of which is the Chair and the other one blindly follows the Sec. So Mr Secretary has 3 of the 5 votes without even trying. The fifth owner is not so involved and when she is, she sees 3 votes in Mr Secretary’s corner and 1 vote in my corner and like all folk who are too lazy to look too deeply into an issue, she votes with the 3.

When I raised the issue of being denied a seat on the SC which was a problem for Mr Secretary who demanded he be elected Sec and Tsr, the fifth owner had nothing to say. Mr Secretary secured 4 votes. Not only did he rail against me being on the SC, but he railed against changing the SC from 2 members, which it has been for some years, with him (Sec/Tsr) and the Chair glued to their seats like barnacles on the hull of a ferry.

In short: the strata is dysfunctional; opaque;  decisions made in secret; decisions are not communicated to OC until the AGM and even then not always; and when questions are asked (by me), I am threatened with an invoice for the “work” the agent allegedly will spend looking to answer me.

[TrulEConcerned]

Hey Kaindub,

Happy Easter and thx for the reply.

You wrote, copied below (in regular font) and my replies (in italics):

Strata managers have as part of their agreement the right to charge fees for doing certain things. Have a look at the agency agreement. However the fees are charged to the OC and not to the individual owner. Interesting. But the agent’s email inferred the owner requesting the information will be billed for any work allegedly performed by the agent in addressing my questions.

If the SM is being diff I cult, just stump up $34 or so and do your own strata search. You then have unfettered access to all documents and its harder for them to hide stuff they don’t want you to see. I asked for access to all the records (ie inspection at the agent’s office) this, but it was denied. Instead I was given access to a problematic portal that is said to contain ALL the documents I am after, but in my limited search of that portal I already found it is a poor alternative to actual physical inspection of documents.

Its hard to gauge whether there is anything wrong with the payment to the committee member. I make it a point that if I do any work for the OC like maintenance , I provide a quote and a statement of work and get prior authorisation from the committee. Why it is hard to gauge the facts, you ask: for starters, the Sec claims in an “invoice” he gave his SC colleague but not the OC that he visited the strata 62 times, but (a) there is no period to cover the invoice; (b) there are no notes as to WHEN he visited; (c) there are no notes as to WHY he visited; (d) there are no ACTUAL invoices from retailers for the items he says he purchased to perform work at the strata, just a one page from the Sec listing alleged purchases; (e) there are no before and after photos of the NEED for the work and the PERFORMANCE of the work; (f) unlike you (i) the Sec did not discuss the proposed work with the OC , (ii) the Sec did not rcv prior authorisation to carry out the work from the OC; (iii) the Sec did not provide a quote before the work was done; (iv) only his colleague on the SC (the only other member of the SC, an elderly non confrontational woman) approved his so-called work and (v) neither the Sec nor Chair informed the OC the work was done and pmt was made. I found it by trawling through the records.

However sine there appears to be no committee meetings as evidenced by the lack of agenda and minutes, you could argue that there was no appropriate and hence the payments should not have been made. Spot on! My thought exactly.

Why aren’t you on the committee and ove r seeing this? The strata has 5 lots. For some years every lot was on the SC. Then I questioned the Sec about his lack of transparency, historic and current: Why did he use OC funds to pay for a new stove for a lot owner?  Why did he mix his funds with the OC’s funds? Why does he not seek tenders for works? Why does he not go about performing works for the OC in the proper manner (as you indicated you have done Kaindub).

The Sec is a lawyer and leaned on two owners (senior citizens) in the strata of 5 lots, one with what seems to me to be dementia and the other with less problematic memory issues. With their votes in the hand, he has controlled the SC for over 25 yrs. One senior has been given OC owned storage space for use at zero rent for decades. I see this as a “sweetener” for the senior citizen gifted by the SC.

The Sec infers “how good is it that a lawyer is on the SC” and made clear that he would not join the SC is I was elected on to it.

These two seniors fell for the Sec’s threat to not sit on the committee if I was to join, regardless of how poorly he serves the owners.

Whatever he says, the elderly owners repeat. Regardless of the merits of his views.

For instance: the smoke alarm in my lot, an alarm chosen by the SC/OC, paid for by the OC and installed for the OC’s account, proved to be faulty over a year ago. The Sec demanded that the cost of a technician and associated repairs will be for my account. When I discussed the matter with the Chair and told her that her view, being the Sec’s view is unlawful as she and the Sec chose the alarm (being the SC) on behalf of the OC and installed it for the OC’s account, in addition to its maintenance under the SSMA being clearly assigned to the OC, her reply was “Can’t you work out an agreement with the Sec? Why is this such a problem for you”? I replied “there is nothing to work out. It’s OC responsibility”. She refused to do anything than repeat the Sec’s words. She would not check with NSW FT or any other source.

Only when I told the agent and the SC that the alarm installer confirmed the OC is responsible and NSWFT told me to tell the SC  that not only is the OC is responsible for the alarm but if they wish to repeat their outrageous demands for me to pay then I should seek mediation where the SC can explain to NCAT’s Conciliator and if there is a hearing, then the SC can explain to the Member their views which clearly conflict with the SSMA.

Unsurprisingly, the Sec stopped harassing me with demands to pay. He no doubt doesn’t want to end up at NCAT having to explain himself.

 

[TrulEConcerned]

Hi Jimmy,

Sorry about my delayed response but I had some family matters to attend to.

Thanks for the advice. I will look into it.

One more thing. When I asked the SC and agent for details of monies paid to date and still owed on large projects (which required special levies to be struck), I was told by the agent: “this goes beyond standard reporting and a charge will be levied on your lot for the work gathering this information”. Having to pay for such data would encourage most owners from not following up such a request. It seems to me that either the SC/agent are willfully concealing data or more likely, their record keeping is at best incompetent. We are talking tens of thousands of dollars, which is a big deal for a small strata.

My questions are:

A) Can an owner be charged to acquaint himself with the true finances of the strata? The financial statements given to owners at the AGM are so poor they would embarrass a first semester accounting student. When I was Treasurer at a different, much larger strata, I offered chapter and verse gratis when such requests were made. I refused to shunt owners to the managing agent. But then, I had nothing to hide; and

B) Given the 2 person SC never meets officially (ie no agendas are sent and no minutes are prepared), should I ask for a General Meeting and list my questions for the above as motions? I would also list a demand that the Sec refund $900 he received from the OC (on the mere ‘OK’ of the Chair) when he presented a one page “invoice” for articles he claims to have purchased to effect maintenance at the strata. Note, not a single original invoice was attached to his  one page dozen line “invoice”. There are no before and after photos. There is no evidence that the works claimed to have been done, needed to be done or were done (no independent verification was offered). Also I understand that ANY pmt to a SC member must go to the OC and be paid only after approval by the OC. (Notwithstanding the Sec’s unsubstantiated claim that the items claimed at ‘at cost’). Not only was this pmt hidden from the OC, but the elderly Chair who ok’d the pmt took as Gospel the Sec’s alleged 60 visits to the strata for repairs, for which he billed the OC the bridge toll, when there is not one SPECIFIC incidence report about why he visited on OC’s dime and what he did at that visit, let alone 60 reports.

[TrulEConcerned]

Two things come to mind:

1. Jimmy’s advice of mediation is useful. If so, you could quote a section of the NSW Strata Schemes Management Act that could assist you:

Part 2
Division 2 Management of strata schemes
9   Owners corporation responsible for management of strata scheme
(2)  The owners corporation has, for the benefit of the owners of lots in the strata scheme

It should be plain as day to a mediator that cutting the canes would benefit you and would not seriously impact on your neighbours. Also I would think your right to sunlight trumps another lot’s expectation of more privacy than they currently enjoy.

That said, be ready at mediation for a neighbour to claim that you knew of the canes’ height when you recently moved in and now you seem to expect your wishes to be complied with? That is unreasonable, unless you were given an undertaking upon purchase that the canes would be trimmed.

That said, IMHO given my experience at NCAT a few times (notwithstanding different Members offer different views), I suggest mediation but prepare THOROUGHLY as though you’re going to trial.

Good luck.

 

[TrulEConcerned]

Jimmy-T mentioned that there is one proxy form only. This is correct. I was unclear earlier in communicating that the proxy giver can specify what restrictions if any she wants to put on the one standardised proxy form.

My point on the proxy giver referring to “matters” v “motions”  is to interdict what I heard happened once some years ago at a scheme I was not involved with: the agenda listed say 9 Motions and a proxy form required the proxy holder to vote against say Motion 7, without specifying what the matter under consideration was.

As the scheme was self managed and the committee often strayed from the rules, not that anybody cared about such behaviour, at the AGM the Secretary said he had to leave early and while he would not be around for all the motions, he would be present for voting on four motions.

So rather than say vote on the first four motions as per the agenda (after which he was to leave), he unilaterally and from what I heard, without dissent, re-badged the original “Motion 7” as  the new “Motion 4”, with original Motion 4 becoming new Motion 5, original Motion 5 becoming new Motion 6 and original Motion 6 becoming new Motion 7.

In the process this neutering the proxy holder’s express wishes. He was now voting against the AGM’s Motion 6.

As the proxy holder was an uninterested party and one that was never apprised of the matter the proxy giver wanted him to vote on, he (like everyone else) raised no objections to the relisting of motions at the AGM.

By the time the proxy giver rcvd the minutes, weeks later, it was too hard and too late to return the horse to the stable.

 

 

[TrulEConcerned]

You are correct when you wrote that candidates for a committee are mostly not known until nominations are called for at the AGM. Good stratas make clear in the agenda  which if any of the current members wish to stand again.

Proxy forms can be of two types: (a) one where the proxy holder has been authorised to to vote on all matters, as he sees fit (i.e UNRESTRICTED) or (b) one where the proxy holder has been authorised to vote on only certain matters. In this case the authoriser would list what those matters are (not what MOTIONS they are) and how the proxy holder is to vote.

Assume we don’t know who is running for a seat on your committee.

You could note your views on the proxy form along the lines of “Strata Committee – when it comes to nominating, seconding and voting for committee members, vote against Mr A, Mrs B and Ms C. Vote in favour of Mr D. Once A, B, C and D have been voted on or dealt with, as authorised by the proxy giver, feel free to vote as you please”.

As the proxy form needs to be given to the secretary or agent before the AGM, the proxy giver’s voting intentions will be clear. This is unsurprising if one is giving the proxy form to someone she doesn’t know well e.g. a neighbour if one is new to the strata or a harmless committee member.

But say the proxy giver, you, don’t want your intentions to be so clear so long before the vote, you can ask ANYONE to be your proxy. The person need not live in the strata. It can be a friend, colleague etc. In such a case you would complete the proxy form in favour of say Ms Jones, your friend. Before the start of the AGM, in accordance with the agent’s instruction, you should email him/her the proxy or hand it in at the AGM’s start. Such a proxy would be I recommend, UNRESTRICTED. You could make clear to Ms Jones how she is to vote on every matter and those intentions need not be telegraphed on the proxy form itself.

You are correct about  the incumbents with 35% or more of the votes dictating how the vote will go. This is politely known as “proxy harvesting”, which is sad to say, not only a threat to democracy (by super gluing a long standing member or long standing members to their committee seats) but is also a consequence of owners (a) being easily influenced as to how to vote by current committee members and (b) falling victim to granting an UNRESTRICTED proxy to a committee member (this happens often when a committee member includes his or her perspective of the past year in the agenda and cynically urges everyone to “get involved” by attending the AGM and if that is not possible, then by passing your proxy form to a ‘committee member of your choice”).

As in your strata as in most, committees often stand or fall together,   it doesn’t matter one jot who on the committee gets the proxy, as they’ll all vote the same way.

[TrulEConcerned]

I’m back. Thank y’all for your patience.

After asking for access to ALL of the strata’s records, last week I received access to an online portal. A vault that is said to contain all I am after. After discovering the vault would not allow me to view or download more than one invoice, I complained to the agent and several days later I was told the problem I pointed to was fixed.

I take the agent at his word.

Here is my problem: if I were to access ALL the strata’s records in the agent’s office, I would surely be able to choose to sift through say, just invoices or just minutes or just emails etc if I chose to. But the way this portal  is organised it is a mere storage locker for scanned documents, allegedly in date order (I have not verified that) but even so, it does not allow me to say, review say just all the emails in a timely manner. There are no folders etc.

I feel like Jim Hacker on Yes Minister asking his permanent secretary for certain documents. In reply Mr Hacker receives cartons of papers that are not organised, collated or sorted in any meaningful manner, requiring abundant energy and hours to unearth what he is after. (The bureaucrats know they cannot withhold documents from him, so they bury the ones he is after so deep it is hard to unearth).

My question: Can I insist on physical access to the original documents, such as the minute book; payments (or invoice) books etc? I ask because over the last two days I have sighted 60 or so invoices with another 500 to go. And that is before I study them and thereafter turn my attention to other documents I am after.

Any thoughts? Much appreciated.

[TrulEConcerned]

Mailbox wrote:

There is $16,000 for water in arrears while the  manager’s wage not in the report report.
We want to get  strata audited. How do we go about it?

Forgive me, but I don’t think you want an audit (if QLD audits are as uninformative as those south of the Tweed). You want to get to the bottom of how much is being paid and for what, surely?
I (in NSW) used to be a Treasurer of a large complex and while auditing was an annual event, I found it to be a waste of my time and everyone’s money, as it filled those seeking an audit with a false comfort of what was going on. I chose to provide detailed information to owners , see “journals” below.
An audit typically involves an accountant or similar going through the strata’s accounts by picking out a few items, a “sample”, of payments and receipts, and determining if, for instance a payment legitimate. And I mean a “few”, an audit is rarely comprehensive.
So say there was an overdue bill of $16,000 for water. And the accountant picked up that document. He/she would ferret for documents to substantiate that amount eg an invoice or several invoices or a reminder letter from the water company and presumably a debit on the bank statement, if the amount was paid. If all of these are provided to the auditor, then the issue is settled. It passes the audit test because the bill can be substantiated by paperwork. This of course does not mean the details listed in the paperwork are accurate.
If I were you I suggest you ask the strata manager to email you the CASH PAYMENTS and CASH RECEIPTS JOURNALS from 01/01/2019 to date.  These reports list LINE BY LINE  money going in and out of the strata’s accounts. Usually these reports have minimal explanations, but do inform who was paid and often “why”. If a line item piques your interest, then you should ask for documents related to that ie invoices, minutes or emails.

Simultaneously, you should ask for copies of ACCOUNT PAYMENTS JOURNAL and ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE JOURNAL. These are listing of what is owed by the strata and to whom as well as how much the strata is owed and by whom.

After you wade through those papers, table a list of “queastionable” entries for which you want more information. Your list should ape the wordings in the journals (ie date, party concerned, amount, commentary (if any), amount etc” and specifically ask the agent for invoices, minutes, correspondence and emails related to those entries.

If the agent replies that there is a fee attached to him/her replying, as some do when they want questioners to vanish, ask the agent to indicate where in the management agreement is that fee stipulated.

Good luck.

 

[Author]

Replies