› Flat Chat Strata Forum › The Professionals › Mediation conflict? › Current Page
I am still confused about what the issue is here.
The strata manager (SM) said they had agreed to the mediation and there was no record of the application for mediation being discussed at committee.
Are you saying that the SM was deliberately concealing the mediation and the issues around it from the committee? But if both the SM and the committee claimed they had approved the participation in the mediation, where is the problem? Someone has to agree to turn up at mediations (or not).
Why would the SM lie about this?
It would be helpful if you could explain in simple terms what you think the issue is. Rather than correct procedure not being followed, what were the consequences of that lapse?
If this is one example of many of a dysfunctional committee being bullied by a controlling SM, then that is another story and there are other remedies under strata law.
I agree that Section 9(3) of Schedule 2 is contradictory when SMs are making decisions on behalf of the strata committee without holding committee meetings. But there are a few contardictory parts of the Act that don’t bear close scrutiny.
For readers not overly familiar with strata law, this section allows owners who individually or collectively hold one third or more of the unit entitlements in a scheme to veto any motions on the agenda by prior submission to the committee – i.e. decisions can’t be made on that agenda item. This would require a meeting and an agenda so the SM’s executive rulings would by-pass that.
I have never heard of this clause being invoked apart from one bully-boy builder-developer who held 40 per cent of the votes in his scheme and blocked any moves by the committee to do anything he didn’t like. The solution was to hold general meetings where the veto would not apply.