› Flat Chat Strata Forum › Strata Committees › Strata Committee paying invoices › Current Page
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