We received an email this week from an owner in New Zealand who has chanced upon a practice that would be described as a cover-up in any normal circumstances but seems to be perfectly acceptable in strata there (and maybe in some strata schemes here too).

We’ll let the Flatchatter take up the story.

“I am owner of a unit within a body corporate in NZ where the body corporate manager is a SCA (Strata Community Association) member,” he says. “As a new committee member during a meeting  I was taken aback to witness the chairperson inform the body corporate manager in attendance to exclude the discussions that were had concerning weathertightness issues from the Minutes.

“As the ‘newbie’ it was explained to me that this was necessary so as not to alarm other owners (i.e. those not on the committee) or prospective buyers into the development who would gain access to the Minutes via the Pre-Contract Disclosure Statement which has to be provided  by the seller (or agent).

“This request was complied with by the body corporate manager without demur and other committee members present were obviously OK with this i.e. normal practice.”

Now it’s one (highly dubious) thing for strata managers to collude with their strata committees to keep information away from prospective buyers, but from owners? Don’t they have a duty to act impartially and look after all owners, not just those on the committee?

Let’s pause here to see what the SCA’s code of ethics says. This applies to all SCA members in Australia and New Zealand.

1. Ethical Stewardship
   Act with loyalty, good faith, and due care, always prioritising the interests of the strata community over personal or third-party interests.
2. Compliance with Law and Regulation
   Educate and guide the committee and strata community to ensure compliance with all relevant legislation, regulations, and laws. Uphold the integrity of the profession by complying with applicable law and consumer protections.
3. Transparency and Disclosure
   Disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest, including commissions, referral fees, any form of payment or benefit received or relationships with service providers.
4. Integrity and Honesty
   Act truthfully and ethically in all professional dealings. Do not mislead, withhold material facts – particularly for personal or financial gain – or engage in any conduct that undermines trust or damages professional credibility.
5. Fairness and Impartiality
   Treat all parties with consistency and respect. Avoid bias or favouritism, especially in dispute resolution or decision-making.
6. Confidentiality and Privacy
   Protect the confidentiality of the strata community and owner information. Handle personal and financial data in compliance with the law and professional duties.
7. Competence and Diligence
   Maintain professional knowledge, and perform duties with due skill, care, and attention. Avoid taking on work beyond your competence or authority.
8. Respectful Communication and Conduct
   Maintain professional conduct at all times and avoid behaviour that is denigrating, disrespectful, discriminatory, or disruptive to all stakeholders.
9. Service to the Strata Community
   Act in a manner that guides and supports committees and the strata community in enabling long-term health, harmony, and sustainability of strata communities, upholding legal obligations with social responsibility.
10. Upholding Reputation and Interests
    Act consistently with SCA’s professional expectations, promoting confidence in the profession, and avoiding conduct that will bring the strata management profession into disrepute.

Now Section 113 of the NZ Unit Titles Act says this: (2) “A body corporate committee must keep written records of its meetings,” and (3) “each resolution must be recorded and included in the written records for the meeting.”
Now, we can see how an agreement not to record a decision may breach the Act as well as sections 1, 2, 4, 7, 9 and 10 of the SCA Code of conduct. But what about recording that an issue had been discussed? Surely that’s part of the written records demanded by NZ UTA Section 113.

Back to our NZ Flatchatter, who clearly had the same concern:

“I did not last long on the committee and submitted a complaint about this conduct to SCA as per their Code of Ethics complaint process, providing the AI summary transcript of the meeting and the published Minutes to show the dichotomy.’

“The complaint was reviewed and closed in 5 days as no investigation was required as the SCA Professional Standards Manager just needed to re-educate me on how it all works i.e.

• (a) the committee did not make a formal written resolution to mislead other owners;
• (b) the body corporate manager did not enter in the Minutes that they (the body corporate manager) agreed to falsify or unlawfully suppress information; and,
• (c) that matters raised are more properly characterised  as operational and governance issues, rather than conduct that can be assessed as an ethical breach by the body corporate manager.”

Confused? We were, so we ran it past SCA’s head office here in Australia and received a response from the excellent Laura Bos, General Manager, SCA Queensland.

“Strata Community Association takes all complaints seriously and assesses matters raised under its Code of Ethics through established Professional Standards processes,” she wrote. “The complaint was referred for independent external review in line with SCA’s governance framework. As that review is not yet finalised, SCA is not in a position to comment further on the substance of the matters raised.”

 So we are none the wiser. Is it a breach of the SCA Code of Conduct or relevant strata laws to not mention that an issue was discusse, even if not resolution was proposed or voted on? We await the conclusion of the review.

For what it’s worth, e reckon the strata manager, being an employee of the body corporate (in NZ) , has a duty to ensure that all owners are kept informed of discussions that take place at a meeting where they are present. Otherwise they are conferring a privilege on committee members – the right to secrecy and exclusive access to material information – that the law does not permit.

We’ll leave the last word to our NZ Flatchatter:

“I was so pleasantly surprised by such a well-thought out, enlightening and prompt response to my concern and that a robust review had taken place. I now have an over-welling of confidence for any professional company that is able to attain the exemplary standards set by SCA and am fully enamoured of the integrity of SCA itself.”

We think he may be taking the pee.