Reply To: Can an owner take the Strata Manager to NCAT for failure to perform duties?

Thank TrulEConcerned Jimmy-T kaindub

As part of a current NCAT matter (against the committee)  I applied to add the SM/s to as respondents, but it was refused for a number of reasons (below in italics), but it makes sense as per what’s been outlined previously.

1 The applicant’s application to join XXXXX and XXXXX as respondents to
the proceedings is refused.
Reasons:
a). The applicant seeks orders to remove members of the strata committee. The applicant
also seeks orders against the Owners Corporation.
b). [Name Redacted] is the Licensee in charge of the strata management and one of the
strata managers assigned to the plan. No orders are being sought against him personally,
and thereby, there is no basis on which to join that person individually as a respondent to the
proceedings.
c). It appears that [2nd name redacted] is also one of the employed strata managers assigned to
the plan. The applicant seeks a general order that she declare any past or current conflicts
of interests to the Owners Corporation. It is unclear on what basis the applicant can seek
such an order which would only involve [2nd name redacted]and the Owners Corporation directly,
and especially when the Owners Corporation is not seeking any such order. The applicant
has failed to demonstrate any case on which he can seek such orders personally against an
employee of the strata management company, and thereby, there is no basis on which to join
that person individually as a respondent to the proceedings.

I also made a complaint with FT for a number of issues I had with the SM,

1. SM Stated that lot owners were NOT permitted to contact the SM, only contact is to be made via SC.
2.  Failing to declare a conflict of interest with one of the senior strata managers who recommended that a close friend/partner quote for major capital works (and of course they got the contract!) and when queried refused to admit any conflict, in fact completely refute that there was ANY connection between the two!
3. Failing to add lot owners nominations on the AGM agenda

FT found that the SM had ‘potentially’ breached the SSMA for point 3, points 2 not enough evidence was produced (at this time) and point 1 the contract indicated this) according to FT, but I refuted it, it was clear whether or not lot owners  were not permitted to contact SM, it only said that the SC will nominated a person to communicate with the SM.

It was like pulling teeth getting FT to admit that there was at least SOME potential breach of the SSMA. What’s even more frustrating is that the SM is a very senior member of REINSW! so there you go….

Its interesting you say TrulEConcerned that the strata manager resigned in your case… I wish were that lucky!

JT: I redacted those names – I’m sure it wasn’t intentional but we can’t allow the Forum to become an arena for personal accusations and finger-pointing.

• This reply was modified 9 months ago by .