› Flat Chat Strata Forum › The Professionals › Mediation conflict? › Current Page
Interesting reply because a lot of SPs have an SC that is for the sake of compliance with the requirement to elect an SC. The SC is in effect window dressing, hold no meeting and do nothing but maybe get ‘polled’ by the agent who is trusted and tasked with acting as the SC.
In the case in question the agent is known to the compliance officers down at FT as a ‘my way or the highway’ type agent who has had FT’s ‘flying squad”, for want of a better name, raid the agents offices. The agent is not a big fan of what does not suit the agent.
The issue of compliance came up at mediation so it was highlighted that the SC, who are an active SC in the SP in question, never had the matter of the mediation on the agenda and never made a formal decision on it. Just to demonstrate the compliance level is not that great.
The agent quickly stated that the agent made the decision under the delegation. I have no doubt it was an absolute lie.
In the past the SP in question has issued NTCs without a decision and when quizzed the SC claimed they made the decision, even though no record of it existed AND the agent claimed the agent made the decision under the delegation in the agreement.
Seems they both wanted to claim the decision, and no s 55 record of those matters ever surfaced from the agent.
At mediation when the agent was then pressed over whether or not the agent had recorded the exercise of function (s 55) to attend the mediation the agent ultimately said the applicant could come and inspect the records. The agent’s office is 130km away and it is not hard to make an entry in a record after the fact.
Anyway the point was “is there a conflict when such occurs”, i.e. when the agent decides the agent will take the gig.
Yes we are talking about protocol issues to some degree but if we care to give credence to the PSA Regs and the rules an agent is supposed to act under then we have an agent acting with no regard for fiduciary obligation.
We have no regard for the formalities of the SSM Act.
I always bring SC decisions that are made without notice or due regard for protocol (a formal decision) back to a denial of the right to veto (sch 2 cl 9(3)).
I feel cl 9(3) of Sch 2 is the most compromised owners right in the Act. Can’t veto what one does not know about.
I would have without hesitation signed a notice not to engage the (useless) agent and I am aware of other owners who would also have.
The idea that failing to comply with requirements of the Act and fiduciary obligation is no big deal is a highly subjective comment.
At what point do such failures become a big deal?
I am sure we could talk about that without resolution forever.
Yes this is an agent with ‘not much respect’ for a lot of thing.
Thanks for your comments JT.