#54740
TrulEConcerned
Flatchatter
Chat-starter

    Jimmy-T wrote
    In my experience, the one way to convince older owners – who are often on fixed incomes – to change their minds is to tell them that their money is being wasted. Telling them that someone they trust shouldn’t be trusted is a much harder sell.


    I agree in principle, but the dynamics in this strata is different.

    Jimmy-T wrote
    Thus, your original approach that the “hidden” subscription to a strata law web service was suspicious, may have worked against you, whereas questions about money being spent on things the scheme doesn’t need would probably  have more effect.


    Please note that I shared my suspicions with you and nobody at the strata. I want access to all the strata records first so I can determine the extent of the absence of transparency, before making noise with the agent and SC/OC. I found it very interesting that in recent two chats with NSWFT, they were for the very first time in my experience, encouraging me to adopt an aggressive posture with respect to the agent who is holding back strata records, even though I asked politely.

    Jimmy-T wrote


    So your initial thrust in getting more transparency on the finances was right, but your tactic may have been wrong.  Presenting the owners with a simple approach along the lines of  “here’s how we can save  money” rather than “you are being swindled” might just get you that extra vote that you need to get on the committee.


    Maybe. Let me clarify. The 5 lots are as follows: “A” (Mr Secretary), “B” (Madam Chair), “C” (senior gentleman with memory issues), “D” (new owner) and me.
    “B” is constantly assured by “A” that issues will always come to the attention of the SC and that she can rely on A, so long as he alone can sort matters out. He is a solicitor, after all he reminds us. “B” is frankly an extension  of “A”. As far as I have seen, she is not involved let alone responsible for admin, repairs, maintenance, instructing, hiring or liasing with the agent, convening or even Chairing meetings (as there are none). When I ask her about any matter regarding the SC, she refers me to the agent who will contact Mr Secretary.
    Case in point: Her chronic deference to the Secretary (without question) was most visible last year. The smoke detector in my unit was not working. It is a common property asset and hard wired. Like all such units it is connected to a common fire board. When I mentioned to Madam Chair that it was not working, she referred me to the agent who would seek instructions from Mr Secretary. In due course Mr Secretary via the agent emailed me that I have a choice: I can either pay the OC for their electrician to fix the problem or I can pay an electrician of my choice to fix it. “Let us know”, I was told.
    I replied to the agent and relayed the contents of my email verbally in person to Madam Chairman (when I bumped into her) that “this is not my problem as the detector is common property”. Her reply to me: “just sort out the payment for repairs with the Secretary”. I doubt she understood my point on common property. Only after I emailed the agent with advice from NSWFT: “such fire systems are OC assets and OC responsibility” did Mr Secretary stop his demands. From her perspective it seemed to me that I was a nuisance and not “being fair”.
    When I reminded her that several years ago, at the same strata with a different agent, Mr Secretary tried the same shenanigan on me, she could not recall. I do however have the emails wherein the agent in that case pretty quickly broadcast just who is responsible for a common asset – the OC. I am worried by her automatic deference to Mr Secretary and what seems to be his ignorance of the Act. You’d think after 30 years he’d know it inside out. Or does he know it and he’s having a go at me?
    As to the senior gentleman, “C”, he is more and more forgetful and is prone to mood swings. Mr Secretary sits with him at AGMs in order it seems to secure his vote. After all, such people are not reliable, unless they are “managed” by another person, such as one of authority at a meeting, sitting by his side.
    This explains I believe why at the last AGM in 11/20 via ZOOM, Mr Secretary traveled to “B’s” abode and sat with both “B” and “C”. Silly me thought the point of ZOOM was to stay safe and stay at home, so everyone can meet virtually from their own homes or offices, without the need for travel.
    So here we have A+B+C voting as per Mr Secretary’s wishes.

 Appealing to either “B” or “C” as you suggest will not work in this strata, unfortunately. “D” is a relatively new owner and as I have found when Tsr of a large block, new owners often go just to the committee for background information on the strata and when seeking directions on voting when presented by a AGM agenda. Especially owners who reside elsewhere. a

    Sorry for the long winded reply, but I wanted to clarify as much as I could.