Re: Update on Insurance Fraud by EC Committee Member ratified by Owners Corporation

Hi Whale,

thanks for the response. The reason this was escalated to the FOS is that the O/C in the person of the Executive Committee, has consistently refused to explain the circumstances of the claim. No documents have been filed in the correspondence file, other than a note from the Strata Manager stating that the office bearer in question instructed that all correspondence be redirected to her personally,so that nothing would appear in O/C correspondence.

I assume that the EC or the chairman authorised the agent to proceed with the claim, but there is nothing in correspondence or EC meeting minutes referring to such authorisation.

At the last EGM, the proposal was put forward by the EC that the matter is now closed, and that motion passed (the chairman holds an impressive portfolio of proxies).

So I had no option but to pursue the matter with FOS in the hope of getting someone to tell the truth.

I have no doubt that there was considerable correspondence between the O/C and the insurer, but none of this ever made it to the correspondence file.

The claim was settled and the office bearer’s legal costs were reimbursed. The insurer has since quoted cover at a rate that makes it obvious they no longer wish to take the business.

I don’t know where this leaves the current strata manager regarding completeness of records. I guess he can simply say ‘well, this is all I got from the original agent, take it up with them’

For my part, we have an office bearer who used violence against an owner and an EC who, on the one hand, refused to discuss it as it was a ‘private’ matter, while on the other, they were actively working to represent it as an O/C matter in order to reward the office bearer.

One thing that also bothers me is the clause in the insurance cover which states that office bearers will be reimbursed in cases which are ‘successfully defended’. This case, apart from not being an EC matter, was also not successfully defended by the office bearer with a court undertaking being signed yet the O/C regards it as closed.

Fraud has taken place here, the insurance company have accepted the incorrect correspondence from the office bearer, paid the approx $1600 and closed the file.  They have awarded somone for an admitted assault on an owner.  It is the function of the FOS to open these matters and look into it and have it resolved fairly.  It is not the amount but the principle involved. The law has been broken on several occasions over this issue and the EC and office bearer have the proxies to cover their tracks. Not acceptable.

How do I word the FOS letter to ensure they look into this?