#55262
TrulEConcerned
Flatchatter
Chat-starter

    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.