Compensation for inconvenience

WilliamW

You make sense when you wrote, “it would seem sensible to have an independent and transparent Engineer Consultancy Company investigate and write a scope of works. Once the scope of works has been written, they will tender the work to 3 or 4 contractors. The Strata Committee can then decide which contractor they will choose”.

I mentioned a similar opinion to one EC member and he seemed agreeable. But soon after he was clearly influenced by two EC members who benefit from the OC paying for the repairs of one lot’s balcony. These EC members convinced the “independent” EC member that the balcony is common property (which worries me a bit) and that the damage sustained is to be repaired at OC’s cost (this worries me more as it has not been proved). It is the absence of a report from an independent authority on the alleged damage that I find most objectionable.

I then asked the “independent” EC member that we need to have an EC meeting and I will table one item to discuss:

Would the EC please advise (a) who owns the balcony in question? The lot owner or the OC? And (b) why was the leaking not subject to an independent investigation instead of asking tillers and concreters to quote for a gold plated job?

The “independent” member does not want to ‘rock the boat’ and said he will ask the others about this, but doesn’t want it in writing. He said he “will not push for  meeting to discuss this if I am convinced that the EC members are genuine”.

It amazes me how easy it is to dupe some people.

I agree that most often balconies are part of common property, but when I asked my solicitor to investigate this issue, he confirmed that the lot connected to the balcony owns the balcony. This is clear on the strata map.

The SP was registered in 1983.

Jimmy

Thanks for your advice.

I am not here to vent my anger but to get some idea how to stop the EC. In a way that doesn’t cost too much and gives me reasonable chance of success.

For your reference, last year I took the OC to NCAT because as a member of the EC, I was denied time and time again access to the financial records and to the transaction a/c bank statements. The exercise of applying for a s.162 (compulsory manager) cost me $300 or so and was dismissed by NCAT.

None of the 4 EC members were concerned with the lack of transparency. Only I was. I asked under s.105 and then under s.108 (as Fair Trading suggested)  to see who was in arrears and to what extent. (I am still waiting for that information).

At NCAT  I also wanted to see how many instances of unauthorised spending took place. In my application to NCAT I identified at least 2 instances. (In addition, some years ago, one office bearer was found to have used OC money to pay for another lot’s kitchen stove, when that should have been paid by the relevant lot owner himself. I still have a copy of the invoice he paid and the butt of the cheque he drew.  I recently asked the managing agent but neither the agent, nor the EC member who spent OC funds on a kitchen stove – and is still on the EC – has confirmed that the money was repaid the OC).

After my NCAT application and appeal I was given access to the strata’s records but mysteriously the papers I wanted were unavailable.

As you know, the s162 order to have an agent manage the strata without reference to the EC meant written submissions and not a hearing was the modus operandi. My submission (and subsequent appeals) were rejected by NCAT because the OC in its response undertook that I would get access to what I wanted.

That was 10/2015 and still to date I have not received the papers I want to see.

The 2015 AGM agenda and minutes did not include what I thought was mandatory: the lot balance reports.

At the 2016 AGM held recently, neither the agenda nor minutes included the lot balance reports. And last week I chased those reports up. You guessed right…no response from the managing agent.

Thanks for pointing out ScotlandX’s reply. I will look at it.

Hi ScotlandX

Thanks for your reply. Sorry for the numerous emails, but I really want (from you and Jimmy) all the ammunition I can have to go to NCAT, ideally with 1 other owner and have a chance to win. If I go alone to NCAT, NCAT and the strata mgr may reasonably consider me as a pest when really I alone want the EC’s conduct to be transparent.

In your email, by “definitive” I assume you mean to definitively know

a) who owns the balcony and

b) what the problem is that has created the leaks from the balcony.

a) There is no doubt in my solicitor’s mind the balcony belongs to the lot. This is clear from the strata map which lists the lot area as including the balcony’s area.

b) I recently asked the Chair to support me by demanding an Extraordinary General Meeting and at such a meeting to insist on an independent investigation into the leaks. One idea of mine is to hire an engineer to investigate. Another idea is to get a plumber to subject the balcony to a pressure and or a dye test which would prove where the water leaks came from.

Before agreeing to consider my request, the Chairman discussed the matter with the Sec. and Tsr and instead of defending the OC, she surrendered to lies and half truths. She came away from meeting them, telling me “they say the balcony is common property even though you say it isn’t.” Note, no proof was given to her that it is common, unlike me who explained to her what the solicitor told me about how strata plans are read. She could not explain to me the reasons the others had for refusing an independent assessment of the leaks.

I always thought that if the leaks are from within the concrete slab (which is common property) it could be argued that the OC should pay for repairs or restoration. But (i) no independent person, in fact no person at all stated where the leaks came from. Hence I doubt they arise from common property. Also, if we NOW hire an independent person, who is to say the balcony has not been tampered with by special interests so as to exacerbate the leakage?; (b) even if an independent person confirmed the leaks arose from common property, surely the OC does not have to supply the lot owner with a membrane where none was previously supplied. Surely the OC’s liability, if there is one, is to ensure the leaks stop. Any economical way we can.

In conversation with me the Chair was dead against the $5000 in rent compensation which the OC (not me) voted for at the Sept 2016 AGM, she has caved in on that as well. I told her Fair Trading thought it “odd” that such compensation is to be paid.