I think a problem with all of these disputes is that an owner believes that the SM knows the answers and is there to help. You then find out otherwise!
If the recent SCA scandal has taught us nothing else, it is that SOME strata management firms are more about profits than service. Netstrata was the company caught with its pants down, partly because its boss was also the president of the SCA.
But look at the other big companies using similar vertical integration models and you can see the potential for maximising profits through their own insurance brokerages and integrated (and sometimes subsidiary) legal firms that have the opportunity to rack up costs against levies defaulters in pursuit of debts, at no cost to the OCs concerned, but with potentially horrific consequences for the homeowners who are already doing it tough.
So it’s no surprise that symbiotic unhelpful relationships between strata managers and strata committees can evolve. In a worst-case scenario, the SM shields the committee from complaints and helps to ensure they get re-elected; the committee renews the contract every three years.
It’s only when an SM with integrity (and there are many) refuses to act in a way that’s to the detriment of the majority of owners, or the majority of owners rises up and demands change, that these cosy relationships can be severed.