#55446
TrulEConcerned
Flatchatter
Chat-starter

    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.